i knew these type of relationships existed. and when i'm trying to get a.c. transit to do is to, as fully satisfy the pent-up demand for transbay services out there. so the more i can get them to say no, put it into the busses, put it into the drivers, because we have to satisfy that demand. which we can't do now because of the streets of san francisco. it just can't be done. but with the new terminal, it can be done. and the idea is that, if we can come out of the chute with a lot of service, and build it up after that, and just keep going, then we can say, okay, we can start a spiral here where we feed the retail, and we start contributing to everything. and if we can get the right tenant improvement mix, for the right retailer, then we can start a spiral, an economic spiral, which is what shopping

centers all try to do. they try to get into that spiral where the rents do that. i think option one does that. that's the idea is to say, you know, let me get the busses to the terminal so we can get as many people in the terminal as we can, as soon as it opens up, and start to buildup the terminal as a place to go and commuter center and a shopping center. >> chair m. nuru: we need a resolution for this? >> e. reiskin: i will second the motion. >> first and second. and no members of the public wanting to comment on the item, director harper? >> g. harper: aye. >> director reiskin. >> e. reiskin: aye. >> vice chair gee. >> vice chair >> vice >> vice chair j. gee: aye. >> and chair nuru. >> chair m. nuru: aye. call the next item.

>> we are coming to you with minor modifications as we get ready to transition into operations, the budget policy keeps our same budget schedule, we would come to you in april with a budget outlook, draft fiscal year budget in may and june but we would layer in, january each year, our preliminary operating budget projection. this allows us to meet the schedules in the a.c. transit leasing use agreement as well as the draft lease agreement with s.f.m.t.a. which requires us to give transit operators that information in the fall, so they can go through their own budgeting processes. the investment policy has very minor modifications. the reserve policy, we are proposing to put in a target for the o & m reserve.

we took a look at what other agencies have as a target. the o & m reserve is already a reserve in our reserve policy, but we would suggest having a target of 25% of the annual expenses of the transit center. of course it would only be funded as money was available. but that would be a goal to build up to the transit center revenues could be susceptible to economic downturns, whereas expenses would be staying the same. so we think a healthy o & m reserve can help us off stand potential future economic disruptions and hopefully not have to pass decreases in revenue in the form of increased contributions from transit operators. the capitalization policy changes, the major change there is just to put in different thresholds for different types

of assets. it doesn't really make sense to have building systems have a $5,000 capitalization threshold, just the same as what you might have for office furniture and office equipment. so that's the main change there. and just an annual review of the debt management policy with no changes suggested. and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> chair m. nuru: yeses? questions? director reiskin? >> e. reiskin: just one. they all seem fine but question on budget 1, the changes reflect the fact we haven't established a finance or budget committee, which the current policy refers to lots of things going to this committee we don't have. so i appreciate you are recognizing that. there's a lot of places where it says "if established". my concern though is that, given that i think we are probably unlikely to establish such a committee, i wouldn't want the board to lose potential budgetability, it was

a challenge we had 3-4 years ago where the board ended up being somewhat surprised by the need to significantly increase the budget, which we had to do twice. i don't know if you can speak to that. i guess i would have rather have things, rather than it goes to the finance committee, if established, it goes to the full board, if there is no finance committee, as the alternative. and i'm wondering if you can speak to that. or if i misread and that's the intent. >> that is the default. if there's no finance committee, it comes to the full board. for instance the budget outlook and the draft budget, those would go to a finance committee first, before coming to the full board, if there were a finance committee established. but since there is not a finance committee established, they come to the full board, and the final budget approval will always come to the full board. >> e. reiskin: but nothing in

this proposed new policy that the board, the full board, wouldn't see, for lack of having established a finance committee? that's what i would want to be assured of. >> no. you would still see the draft budget. basically, having a finance committee would add another month and another step into our process. >> e. reiskin: yeah, and i'm not advocating for that. i just want to make sure if there was a lower level review of some things that wouldn't otherwise come to the board of directors, that we don't default to those who don't come to the board of directors that they do. so if that's the case, then i'm good with it. >> no, it would still come to the board of directors. even if there were no finance committee, it would still come to the board of directors. >> e. reiskin: okay. >> chair m. nuru: director gee? >> vice >> vice chair j. gee: thank you. i might have missed this, just

remind me, there's a lot of things. based on the last two presentations about the leasing and the pop-up and the tenant improvement, is there a line item for future tenant improvement terms as we transition from construction to kind of being a building-operator? that's separate from the mno reserve? we don't have to do this again when we have like 5-6 years and we have to go find tenant improvement money? >> there's not a reserve specifically for that in the reserve policy. i know that our long term budget projections do assume that when you have space turnover at the end of a leasing period, that is included in the projections of an expense in that year. we also have, under our kifi loan, access to net tax

improvement for capital replacement. >> vice >> vice chair j. gee: best practice, it might be good going forward to have that as a separate line item. there will be tenant terms and to have that separate budget for our share of tenant improvements, i think, so we don't lose it and spend it somewhere else, i think, would be a good practice. >> sure, we can look at adding that in the future. >> chair m. nuru: any other questions? so we need -- we are approving. >> make the motion to approve. >> second. >> first and second and no members of the public wanting to comment on the item. harper? >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> gee. >> aye. >> nuru? >> aye. four aye's and it's approved. at this time you are schedule d to go into closed session.

i understand vice chair gee will have an announcement and we have one member of the public who wants to address you on the items. before we clear the room. one moment though. >> just for the record, i will be recusing myself from the closed session. there are a number of conversations under way in this very complex project and until there's great clarity and in an abundance of caution i will step away from the closed session agenda at this time. >> chair m. nuru: noted. >> noted. and we have mr. patrick. >> relative to the closed session, it's my feeling that we talk about the leaning tower. and our responsibility there. i point out to the board we spent $250 million in kasons supporting that building. i think it with stood the test of time and it's done what was predicted. i also point out we have this public relations p.r. piece put out a year ago on our website

and it talks about how this leaning process has gone on with this building and it's been quite predictable. that's the good news. the bad news we have chosen not to update it, i think that's been a mistake. we need to argue our case in the public realm, as well as argue it in the private realm. i don't want these lawyers getting together and say gee, you should take responsibility for this. i don't want to give up the ship. i think we should move to dismissal and get out of these cases and be very aggressive how we handle this thing. we already invested $250 million to make sure this problem didn't happen. thank you. >> that concludes members of the public that wanted to dress you -- address you on the closed session items, so we >> all right the tjpa board of

directors meeting is back in session. there is nothing to report. that does conclude your agenda for today. >> chair m. nuru: okay, we will adjournment meeting. thank you. >> .

[gavel] the meeting will come to order. this is november 30, 2017 regulr meeting of the commission. i am sandra lee fewer joined bye chair cynthia pollock on my rigd hillary ronen on my left. the clerk is alisa somera and ie to thank the staff at sfgovtv, t dam clerk. >> clerk: please submit any doco the clerk. >> supervisor fewer: item two. >> clerk: approve of the lafco s from the november 9, 2017 specil meeting. >> supervisor fewer: do you commissioners have any changes e minutes? seeing no changes, we'll 0e7 thr public comment. any members of the public who wo

comment on item 2? no? seeing no public speakers, publc comment is now closed. do yo i have a motion to approve minutes, please. we'd like commissioner -- commir ronen and seconded by commissior pollack. these are approved. >> clerk: item three aggregation activities report, a status updn the cleanpowersf program. >> i believe we have a brief stf presentation from the san franco public utilities commission. >> [off mic]

>> is this working now? yes. we went to our commission and gt authorization for moving forwarh those power contracts. that authorization would allow r general manager to execute the y contracts with certain conditio. similarly, we are bringing an io the board of supervisors that wd allow us to move through the prt of supply process at a pace thas what the market requires. so that we can supply the progrd begin serving a new group of cus by july 1, 2018. the california public commissios

before it issues regarding the r charge and dairches justment, te fee charges community choice agn customers to cover the above-mat costs that pg&e incurred on thef before they left. we'll see decisions there in de. then we'll come back to you andr own commission in the first quaf it 2018 with the results of tha. we also have been active in a cn the retirement of the de diablor facilities. pg&e is proposing in that settio retire the plant which we suppot they're proposing to invest $1.n over the next six years in replt power and energy efficiency. for us, we think that means siny

don't have customers to serve, e community choice aggregation coy is supplying customers, that mee pcia costs. we've been arguing at the galifc to stop that from happening. that will have an impact on ourd we expect a decision in early 2. with that, i'm happy to take any questions you may have. >> supervisor fewer: any questim commissioner? >> just as a clarification, youd that you would begin serving new customers july 1, 2018? >> yes. >> that is our plan. >> not 2019? >> we're expecting to do two moe enrollments, one july 2018 and y 2019 and by then, everyone wille enrolled in cleanpowersf in sann

francisco. >> i love this. >> are there any members of thec to comment on item three? >> thank you. jeff hoaltsman. i would speak to say if you hapo know any members of the board of supervisors getting the approvae authority to the sf puc, i knowe monetary value might be higher n usual, but it's in line with ota programs that don't have to gete authority from boards like thiss the only way that the pra fram d move at business pace and make m program could move at business d make progress. >> thank you very much. >> eric brooks, our city and san francisco green party and califs for energy choice, i think i mie mentioned this in a previous he, but in january, legislation is o come forward again in sacramento

privatize and regionalize the ca electricity grid. right now, the california electy grid is run by the cal iso whica california nonprofit. as soon as it becomes regionali, bircher hathaway which is a coay corporation will be the biggesta in that room and will - get conr that. it will bring cheap coal in ande with community choice a moong or things. even worse, because it's a we l grid, that would pument the trud straition and regulatory commisn it charge of californian's elecy grid. i don't know if the interim exee officer can do this, but right n

january, that bill was introduct year and it was a two-year billd fought it and stopped it last yy of us working on the state levee text is available and we knee lo staff to look at it right away e proactive about that so that ass that bill hits the legislature,e lafco can oppose it and encourae mayor to oppose the bill legisle >> supervisor fewer: any other e public comment? seeing none, public action is c. madam clerk call the roll. but miss hill. >> in light of mr. brook's comms the puc following the regional f the grid and have you taken a pn

on that? >> barbara hail assistant generl manager for power. the puc has been following thatd following it more through the ca municipal utilities associationr publicly-owned eu timent capaci. we are -- utility capacity. i don't think the city took a pn on the regionalization bill in t session. but it's on the table in terms f the issues that we expect as mrs said to see come back and it wio through the legislative positios that the city takes. >> do you see that coming in tht two months? or would it be at a timeframe te could perhaps just direct staffi guess, to add on to an existingu said that the regional body of s

was -- >> the regional body of publicld utilities. that's the california municipal utilities association. we're also members of the califa community choice association. and this -- just to give you moe information on this effort, we n oregionalization of the grid isf governor brown's pursuits. he sprung some change changes on the last legislative session to accomplish this objective of hi. but for the fact that it came ld surprised folks, i think it -- e governor proposes something ands everyone it's a key priority oft usually has momentum and passes. this time it didn't i think lary because of the surprise factor. i think we'll see a more regular

approach to regionalization wouy expectation in the next legislae session and san francisco will e opportunity to take positions os to arrive at a position and come that to the legislative. >> okay. i think my only request and char can weigh in on this is just, is taken at this time, which i thif no action is taken at this timeh is premature, if a change occurt you would send just an alert, tn fyi to the chair. >> very good, we'll do that. >> thank you. madam clerk, item four. >> clerk: item four, the interim administrative officer's report. >> through the chair to the memf the commission angela calvillo.

the budget of lafco is currentlg for the duties you're pursuing currently. i do not have a report. we've been working to get to the workshop and the detail around e workshop, otherwise, to be brieo not have a report at this time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you y much. now, are there any public speakt would like to comment on this i? >> jason [inaudible] private ci. i apologize for making this quik comment. i realize that february of next, wore public seats come up. you might want to give instructn totion the administrative offico start the process for noticing d putting out notifications if thc seat. the clerk as office has the pros down. i'm looking at how this commisss made up could become an issue oo

figure you can work with legal l because two commissioners cannot approve. in it body, you need three commissioners. there is discussion on how you'g to do that next step. i wanted to make sure you were g attention to that. it will could provide tricky mag of how you do appointments to tc seat. >> supervisor fewer: any other c comments in seeing none, publict is closed. item five. >> clerk: item five is discussin lafco's strategic plan. >> i would like to express our o pamela miller for the local agey formation commission that agreee today to assist us in our stratc planning discussions. miss miller.

>> thank you madam chair and mef the commission. pamela miller, the executive dir with cal lafco. i appreciate the opportunity ton in front of you and have the din earlier about strategic opportus for this particular lafco. and with your permission, i'd lo just summarize what it was thatu discussed in terms of ideas thae thrown ow out and opportunitiese concerns. >> supervisor fewer: that's thee of the chair. >> do i have permission to use e flip charts as props? or should i just read from them. >> supervisor fewer: you can uss props. do you need any assistance? thank you. >> so your commission actually p

with four initial items to delvr into for future focus of this commission. out of those four, you actuallya deeper dive in terms of conversn opportunities and concerns on tf them. the first topic was sea level ra result of climate change. the second was public/private partnership opportunities. the third was municipal banking. the fourth that you chose to noe any further at least for purposf today's discussion was level ofg and navigation centers to solvee homelessness problem. with respect to the sea level re conversation, the opportunitiest

this commission identified woult this would be a collaborative e. lots of public discussion regare existing plan. what are the effects of the neighborhood? your commission had indicated tt neighborhood flooding is a prob. so an opportunity to explore th. to perhaps look at and enhance a coordinated plan to the creatioa sea level rise adaptation plan. your commission noted that thism is inevitable. so it will is time to plan and e for the disasters that will occa result of sea level rise. it will allow you an opportunitk at any current existing emergenn

and recommend improvement. im-- improvement on those plans. some of the concerns that your commission talked about should s particular issue be undertaken s lafco is that there could be a r additional funding that there ae limited funds for this lafco. and so find ag finding additione sources that are legal issues te mindful of and certainly your ll council is your guidance in tha. you would need to define a cleae of this study. this is a huge -- all of the tot you discuss are huge. defining a scope of your study g to be important for you. that there are existing processd ownership of those progresseses.

it's incumbent upon this lafco e for yourself the value and the e that you bring as a partner to s conversation. so that was the discussion aroua level rise. the next topic for potential stt you discussed in more detail wae public/private partnership scem. the opportunities you identifiee was that this would be an opporo review benefits to the city andy by getting at what is it that -s it that private entities can pum sorry, that is risk analysis. is the city and county getting e benefits that are appropriate is of the partnerships? also a risk analysis. how can a private ebb at thi eny

and county at risk in terms of s partnership? to explore benefit packages negd by hospitals, to take a look ate private and for-profit transit s using the streets of the city. to look at financing, to look ag rights. this is an opportunity to shinet on the need to increase transpan the formation of the partnershi. to gain insight into the depth d breath of the partnerships thatt today. and to -- for the lafco to be te city-wide watchdog and mechanist the appropriate governance of te partnership. the concerns that you talked abt relates to this particular issue similar to the ones for sea lev. you have limited funding.

you have need to find revenue s. be mindful of legal issues. you have to define the scope an, there are existing processes and ownership. so being clear with yourself ang able to define the value of lafg a partner in these conversations going to be important as well an additional concern that was ide, and that is these existing proc, there is a private industry aspo that that adds a different layef dimension for your consideratio. finally with respect to municipl banking, the opportunities thatu identify there was an opportunio develop and present a scope thas complimencliment ri and adds to- climent r -- yousee potential fr

this. you said it allows a several iss under one umbrella and in us dig those, you identified them as c, affordable housing, local buildr cca, homelessness and fiberoptic broadband. then, you talked about diversifk and focus. you had a belief this adds highn terms of adding to the intereste board as well as increasing dem. some of the concerns, again, ths sea level rise. mindful of legal issues. the need to define your scope, d

to define your value as a partne mindful of all of those existing partnerships in the conversatiot may be going on. this is really a long term issu. you also indicated that for this particular project, or focus, ta high level of expert analysis we needed on the longer term. and you had conversation aroundg for that. there was also the concern idend for a potential high resistancem real estate capital. those were the three major issut you identified and discussed ine bit more detail in terms of opportunities and concerns. and with that, i'll turn it bac- >> thank you miss miller. is there any comments from the commissioners?

>> first, i wanted to thank misr so much for coming and helping s through this process to help ust could be potential work of the d i want to thank my fellow commis for engaging in this exercise we which is what i needed to get bk engaged in this body and excitet the work ahead of us. it worked, it happened and i'm g forward to working with you on e potential, exciting future work. with that, of all the things the discussed in weighing both the opportunities and concerns and g through capacity and budget, i d suggest that we continue the wot we've been doing with cca, thatt a new work area and look into ap

define thdefinethe work furthern francisco and work on and pursue of work for analyzing public pre partnerships. i think if we limit the body's , these are big topics. if we limit the scope of the pr- of the topics and limit the scon further with the help of some st that we can bring on, i think id enough for the body to continueo innovate and add new work in the but narrow enough to focus and s moving on some work projects thn really add value to the city any of san francisco. if i can make that particular m, but i wanted to start the discu.

>> supervisor fewer: let's havea discussion then open it to publc comment then entertain a motion. >> just to echo the commission's thoughts in thanking miss miller facilitating our workshop, i the sometimes need to see it on theo realize where there is synergy,o realize what exciting work is af us. i think -- i want to echo commir ronen's thoughts on municipal bd expanding and continuing our won cleanpowersf. i'm excited about the public/pre partnership just exploring whate public/private partnerships aren

the city and county of san frand understanding the scope of that. i think one thing i would mentid did mention it in the workshop t for the cca and public bank opt, those would be things that i dok that we have to make a motion on on because this body has voted e before. we would need to for the publice sips of partnershipprivatepartne could begin work on all three. we would use the money from the. for cleanpowersf to begin a stuy similar to the next report and t could be something we could dirf

to begin an rpf when staff is o. it seems like we could begin soe special reports as soon as we hf to scope everything out for us. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i also wanted to echo the appren to miss miller for getting us o. i think we had a lot of discussd we were just kind of floating is over. it took really some of your expo come in and put it on paper, ano organize it so we could see a py for lafco to work on these thin. thanks so much. and thank you to the california association of local agency forn commissions to give us this reso help us to do this. thank you so much. i would like to now call on memf the public that would like to cn item number five. >> thank you chair fewer and

commissioners. jed holtsman. i support your involvement in c. i think that's important to getn francisco to where we need to be vis-a-vis greenhouse gases. the partnership issue could brin revenue. i think we're all expecting thae might find -- i shouldn't make assumptions, as a member of the, i think we'll find that these public/private partnerships dong the full weight of benefits to . i think one dollar per renting b space comes to mind. this is great. this could bring money into they which we want. a general opportunity that i wao point out, i know that you're cd about duplicative cork, which yd be, but we have an odd situatioe one body with a fairly limited f staff does work of a city councd

board of supervisors in some ca. i would argue that you have moro than most legislators. i this there is a way to shoalde work. because having been to many of r committee meetings after the fir sixth hour, the level of engaget might start to dip. i think this is actually an oppy for a lot of synergy and supplementation. thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> good afternoon, i think it i, commissioners, eric brooks san o green party and local grassroots organization in our city. i want to give a thumbs-up to wt commissioner ronen has put forw.

i think what you've got crystalw is the issue of public bank, the of public/private partnerships r existing program clea cleanpowed all the other programs that we'e discussed like public broadbandt would be funded by a public ban. this is like what is the publice relationship. how do we get public funding tot more public and building stuff. this is -- to me, that is what s all about, that kind of vision. so thumbs up. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. any more speakers from the publ? seeing none, i'll close public t now. [gavel] i want to thank the public for g out and participating in our wop and also reminding us how impors body is. your commitment to it body too,k helps us to boost our commitmeno

lafco and the exist tense of la. i want3me to thank you very mu. commissioners, it look likes wee some options. i would like to ask commissioner pollack, i know -- pollock, you mentioned doing public outreache collecting some thoughts from te public. i am wondering if we made a decn today, would that give you the opportunity to go out to the pu? or would you prefer to actuallye this item into our january meeto give you time to do public outrh around this? >> i appreciate that concern, bi know that we had a workshop thae members of the public were in tm and were able to see things fle.

but in the interest of transpari think it would be beneficial inr that we have a public workshop,n we could finalize any decision n january. so perhaps we could continue thm that we would schedule, we ask r or -- we could ask staff to scha public meeting and i could perhg in a facilitator to work with uk at the items we've discussed ane them even further so that when n work next year, that staff -- se an idea of how we might direct n scoping the projects out. >> supervisor fewer: are you maa motion to continue this item unr meeting? january to allow for a time to c transparency? >> i would. then also included in that, i we

to direct staff, if it pleases e chair, to schedule the meeting r december for a public workshop. >> commissioner ronen, do you hy comments on that? >> supervisor ronen: this wouldt you? >> not a special meeting of laft an opportunity for me in my capn a public seat that i would engae members of the public so we coua broader input that we would brik to this body. and i would present to this bode vote on future agenda items in . >> supervisor ronen: that woulde fantastic. >> supervisor fewer: that is wol for you to do that. i believe there is a motion on r to continue this item until ourg in january. i think you made the motion. >> i did. >> second. >> this is moved by commissionek and seconded by commissioner ro. without objections, the commiss-

sorry, that we will reschedule m to be heard in january. thank you very much. >> to the chair, just a word abe meeting in january. does this body have an inclinato when in january they would likee january meeting to occur? or is that something i would woh the chair on? >> call of the chair. >> thank you. >> then on the date certain meei can work with the chair on whatt date would be. okay. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: so without objection, the commission authoe meeting to be at the kawflt chai mean, this item to be continuede call -- next meeting which is ie call of the chair. thank you very much. madam clerk. would you please call item six.

>> clerk: discussion of possibls for on e obtaining executive ofr services for the commission ande direction of staff. i believe we have a brief presen from teresa strickler and our a, is that correct? >> through the chair to the commissioners, angela calvillo. i am the interim officer, admine officer and clerk of the board. at our last meeting, you heard m teresa stricker our legal counct brought to you an option in yout today. there was a memo associated to e you options. in addition to that, since the t meeting, we have looked at an alternative to those options whh comprise a request for qualifics

which would bring to you optionf individuals once we said what ts or minimum qualifications would. once they qualified and metropoe mqs, then a group of individualr agency could come before you anu could determine which to choose. you wouldn't be subjected to a e that an rfp is subject to per t rules. points could be granted if thera subcontractor involved. so the option is we essentiallye the scope of services and contrt duties similar to what you havey in the rpf. we can provide that document tor

the chair if the panel wanted te the chair the authority to makee decision on the mqs and contract duties, you have them buff. -- you have them before you and we could loh teresa's legal council. it could get out on the street a matter of two weeks. so it is an opportunity that yod utilize today and it could get u thinking about a group of indivs who might meet the qualificatior the chair or the commissioners e from after the holidays immediay beginning in january. so available for any questions. >> are there any questions? >> i do have a question. when you mentioned the minimum qualifications, you're talking t

what's in the draft rpf which ce an rfq on pages 4 and 5? >> yes, commissioner. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: okay. commissioner ronen? any comments or questions? >> supervisor ronen: no. >> supervisor fewer: let's openp for public comment. >> i'm jed again. my only comment is i'm not suree timeframe for these options. we have a strong interest in mae that cca matters are being moniy lafco staff in the manner that e been for a number of reasons. one is public education in termf happenings. liaison role between the publice

puc. i would say that having gone tof sfpuc meetings, the commission e good analysis on the presentatim their staff from the lafco staf. as you heard from mr. brooks, ts aggressive legislation that is p every session at this point. and we didn't even mention in an to regionalization, there was sc cca-killing legislation that tha folks are working on. but it would be great to have ty and county in this capacity of o monitoring as they previously d. if there is some way to both isr kind of long-term actual plan fn executive staffer as well as sod of short term stuff getting in e right away and fill in3me the o make sure we're not missing somn

january when bills are getting introduced. i think that would be advantage. >> supervisor fewer: thank you y much. >> good afternoon again. eric brooks san francisco green. our city, californians for enere clean energy advocates. i wear a lot of hats. i would second what mr. holtsmad which is that we need somebody n hopefully in january. i hope that would be a permanent executive officer. based on where this lafco seemse headed, what you need is a gene, not a specialist. and i think that the cal lafco r said something to that effect ie workshop. you need someone like former exe officer fried who has the abilio

encapsulate all the issues as a coordinator, then hire out to specialists for a specific contt needs for things like cca 2.0, y choice 2.0 and that kind of thi. i want to reiterate, i think nol do you need a generalist, we net only do you need a generalist. we need that generalist soon. and one more, because it looks s is not going -- from what i've , this is not going to be a union position. that is unfortunate. we need to figure out a way thas bid process is not a lowest comn denominator bid that ends up has hire someone for low pay that it appropriate and we should try ta prevailing wage for this type o, for this job and maybe more to r benefits.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you y much. you be public comment is now cl. commissioner pollock, do you haa comment? >> i have a question for miss c. given we have a short and long f things we'd like to correc dire, what does the timeframe look lio issue an rfq as proposed in the? what would be the timing being f we were to have the chair work u and then send it out versus porr details here? >> through the air. angela calvillo, interim office. i believe we could have the find rfq once the legal council had n opportunity to review for publit on the streets essentially next. number one. then it would be up to the chaie

length of time she's interestedn having that rfq out for individo see. we could do kirc different type. there are lots of opportunitiess to determine and work with yorks on where the noticing should go. if it's out there for two or ths or shorter or longer, it's your. once we get -- yes, chair. >> supervisor fewer: that is a h quicker process than an rfp, ist correct? >> that's correct, yes. once we get the qualified indivs back, it's a matter of time of,u know, making just reviewing thoe individuals who have met the mqd your determination of the lengte that is necessary to share withr commissioners. we could make a presentation att

lafco commission or we could eml the chair to make that decisiond bring that individual here to tt meeting for destruction if she's empowered to make that decision. it will could be as long or shoe manner that i have described itd be. >> and just so i understand, ife this option, then it would be as person would be an independent contractor, that we would specie length of time. then if we chose for th the lonm solution to this issue, to issue full rfp, this person could plyr that, but it would be under the independent contract rubric or n that we have in these options. >> that is correct.

>> commissioner ronen. >> i believe there is a two-year component. going out for a longer term rfpa good idea. >> so i think -- do you have any comment? >> so if i understand correctlye could direct the chair to work u in terms of figuring out the lae for the rfq, and also to put thq out, and then to work with you a designated hiring staff to hiret person. for the contract not to exceed two years. but i would say maybe that we sd think about until end of fiscalr

that we have funding for. would you need to know from thiy today, the minimum qualificatio? or could we have the chair worku on that as well? >> this commission for the chain work with us. >> and so chair fewer could undd the budget and not to exceed rad be part that have decision thatd ask her to do. >> supervisor fewer: we could ds today and agree on an amount noo exceed. >> i would feel comfortable notg today. because then it gives you the flexibility to work with our administrative officer so we dot choose -- you know, that it woue consistent with the work that we

looking at and we wouldn't go or under. >> it sounds as though there isa decision being made today whetht we'd like an rpf versus an rfq. does the attorney have any infon she wants to add to that? >> the rfq process would be a qr process. it allows you to implement fastd move forward faster. i see no downside to that. you would need to, as i'm under, i have not looked at the rfq qualifications, but as i undersm miss calvillo, there would be ar limitation, but that gives you f time to do something more permad you may want to do that anyway. i would say in terms of how quie can get it out, a little bit oft will depend on the schedule of r if you are de delegating. but window could do a legal revd

be ready to go if the chair is g to get it out next week. in terms of how long you want it there, you have holidays coming. there is oftentimes a strategy h making deadline before the holid if that fills too quickly, not g the second or third of january e it falls off the radar. if you're going to get through e holidays, i might recommend goie friday before the new year's hoo people can have time to finish . that may add an extra week, buty give you a broader selection of candidates. in terms of moving forward, it e the pleasure of the chair how mh authority -- plebber of the comn to find out how much authority o delegate to the chair whether io screen down and bring forward te

commission perhaps one or two candidates, even three candidatr whether you want your chair to t selection for -- to do selectio. if you want to pick the finalisd have a hand in that, we can do t way. >> i think that -- i want to be conscious of time, we must adjos meeting by 1:30. so i would like to ask that we a motion, i think what i'm hearing consensus on is tha we'd go forq instead of an rfp because it's . i think we would need to make an on that decision. so i think i'd like to make a mn that we would accept and go witq instead of an rfp for the selecf our executive officer. >> i would have a friendly ament